Kathy Ryan, N. Kander, R. Haggart, or “What would YOU do if YOU got the call…?”
I’ve been thinking about the Nadav Kander picture story in the NY Times; can’t get it out of my head. I remember seeing the first image on the web version, as a Preview to the Magazine, last week. It was the picture of Rahm Emanuel, and I remember thinking, “Whoa, WTF, why is this white-seamless portrait on page one?” It looked, on page one, more like Rahm Emmanuel got busted for a BJ or something. It looked like one of those Hugh Grant or Nick Nolte 2am mugshots. Then I saw the photo credit, and I thought, “well, this is going to get interesting”. Then, I read about it on Rob Haggart’s site, and perused the Comments as well. Then, like the wimp that I am, I posted a comment anonymously, as well, under the name Dueling Standards. Then, I saw that my friend Robbie McClaran posted on Rob’s site, and also on his own blog. So I wrote to Robbie, and jumped his shit for what I thought was him defending the images. And we’ve been exchanging emails back and forth, comparing notes. It’s mostly him writing intelligently, and me yelling back at him. That’s my style.
First off, a few disclaimers:
1. I come from a journalism background, even though I’m a commercial photographer now. (Had to find some way to actually make a living).
2. I love the NY Times. I love Kathy Ryan. (Never met her, just admired her work from afar).
3. I’m a news junkie, and a politics junkie. And a portrait junkie. (So that Obama’s People story certainly got my attention.)
4. I’m kinda old. I’m not cool. I’m sorta Old School. I grew up following Avedon and Penn and Roversi. I’m more “classic” than “green gel rimlight cool”. (If you don’t know what green gel rimlight cool means, then you’re not cool either).
So anyway, about the pictures: I looked at them, over and over, and I thought, “I just don’t get these pictures”. I mean, I love Nadav Kander’s work, he’s a true leader and innovator, but something just bugged me about the pictures, (besides the fake stripped-in drop-shadows that I’ll probably complain more about in a second). I just can’t get my head around that double-umbrella thing with the front fill, that makes everyone look like they’re stuffed, or living in Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Wax Museum. Again, I’m not cool. But I just think, if the goal of the story was to give you an intimate glimpse into the BackRoom People that are truly gonna be calling the shots in the next four years, why would you make them look stuffed?
You couldn’t help but compare to Avedon’s similar work in the past. (Keep clicking right and left).
I mean, I would see Gibbs or Emanuel or Axelrod or Gates interviewed on television, and they’d come off in a certain way, and then I’d see the Kander portrait, and I thought, “Wow, these are not portraits of Obama’s People; these are all just portraits of Nadav Kander. Or even worse, portraits of Nadav Kander’s retoucher!” I just thought that the images should have been credited as photo illustrations, instead of “straight” photographs, due to the drop-shadows being inserted. And only because the photos were in a newspaper. If they’d been shot for ArtNews or Modern Painter, no big deal, but for the NYTimes, I just think you’d got a basic responsibility to the reader to be somewhat transparent. But that’s just my opinion. So I guess you know you’re a pretty big deal when you’re hired to shoot a story, and your “style” takes precedence over the actual content of the story. I mean, I’m sure, on some level, Avedon’s thumbprint is all over the place, in his 8×10 political portraits, but for some reason, it seems so much less heavy-handed. You still get a sense of the humanity of the person being photographed. I mean, if you don’t have humanity, what have you achieved? These people are not war criminals; they are hopefully here to bring a new sense of transparency and progress to this country. These are the GOOD guys; if you need proof, note the White Hat on Ken Salazar! This story was not an attack piece; why the need to shoot it this way?
On the flip side, I don’t know how many young photographers know how lucky we all are to have Kathy Ryan running the show there. It’s one of the rare avenues where somebody still takes chances. (Even if I don’t agree with some of the chances). I still applaud someone not taking the safe way out, all the time.
And every photographer reading this, take a second and imagine that it’s YOUR phone ringing, and when you pick it up, the voice says, “This is Kathy Ryan from the NY Times Magazine. Do you have a minute to talk about a project…?” Imagine how you’d feel if she started describing this Obama project. How would YOU shoot it? How would you light it? Would you use white seamless? It’s just a dream project. Also view Jeff Riedel’s excellent piece in a recent GQ as well. Very very nice work.
——-
Download a really badly-scanned PDF that I did, of the Kathy Ryan interview, in Image Makers, Image Takers. I’m sorry, the pictures look awful here, but I had to darken everything, because the text was not contrasty. But better than anything, buy the real book.
——-
And here’s a strange article, too. See if you can plow through the syllables to find the content. Was this guy sent in by The Calvary, to shore up the gates, and provide cover?
Hey Mark,
I’ve looked at these pictures several times now and they grow on me more and more. At first I too thought WTF’s going on here. I’ve gone back to check out Nadav’s other work, and this works seems to follow his style, sort of chaotic and edgy. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t. But at least he’s putting it out there, trying out new things. I can remember Irving Penn (who is my personal god, photographically speaking) upset a few people with his still lives of rubbish etc. but again he was always interesting. He did stuff to please himself not his customers. What a cool dude for having the courage to do that. Wished I had the balls to do the same.
Maybe these people look better ’stuffed’ ! I’m not sure whether I like the shots but they sure are interesting…..
Dear Mr. Standards,
I like the shots. They capture an element of each individuals’ personality. They stand out. They make you think about who these people are. I also started my career in the newspaper business and I have to confess if I were asked to shoot these people I would probably have done a bunch of boring tight head shots — because that’s what would have been acceptable back in the day when I was in the newspaper business.
The premise of the shoot was an introduction to Obama’s key staff. Half of the people are very familiar faces. The other half are relatively obscure people. The creative treatment levels the playing field somewhat — they all come off as individuals rather than two tiers: famous and unfamous. I think the approach is appropriate with this sort of feature. Certainly using these shots for any other news story involving these people would be wrong.
I agree with you, the phony shadows are really lame and annoying. Although, to be fair, if I didn’t work with Photoshop everyday I might not have even noticed. This may be a case of being too familiar with how the sausage is made. Most people who read the NYT, just see pictures. We (at least I), on the other hand analyze and deconstruct images.
Lastly, the fact that the NYT is trying to be more creative is probably a testament to abundance of mass media outlets and the continuing struggles of print newspapers to earn a living. I’m not sure it’s a bad thing. But it does underscore how the news business has changed since the advent of 24-hour news channels and the multitude of Web news resources.
I have been shooting these style portraits for sometime with my Circleville Sessions project. I like the fact that Kander is pushing this look into the mainstream, if anything it validates a portrait style that is my go to, so thanks to Kander for that.
Here is the reason why I do it, I want to tear down the portrait as a flattering document, to remove the sugar coating that is applied time and time again through lighting, make up, and retouching. I want simple distilled personality, caught off-guard and in the moment. I want awkward. I want no distractions. So, for my work this simple set-up and presentation works graphically for me. I am surprised that NYT went for it…thanks NYT.
I cannot speak for Kander, but I believe that the reason there is such a huff about the work is the sheer lack of flattery. Life is unflattering and off-guard and awkward. The media and the public, prefers pretty, stylish, primped and made up people, facades of humans that exude the various tenets of fashion and exuberance. I love the clean, simple, dare I say classically “governmental” look of the work…it reminds me of a instruction manual.
Well he has to try and separate his images from the uber trendy and in the now portraits by Jill Greenberg! Dropped in shadows are hip, and seemingly, so are portraits that seem to strip away all personality. If his goal was to make them somehow all look the same with the exception of gender, he hit his mark. I agree, they could all be taxidermy prizes in front of a white backdrop.
I wonder if that shadow thingy is a plug-in?
They definitely do recall Avedon’s work, in that they’re almost intentionally and brutally unflattering at times, in the service of making an image that speaks to the photographer’s vision. But while Avedon’s portraits tossed flattery out the window in the interest of creating a more bare representation of the subject, some of Kander’s seem to me like tossing flattery out for the sake of being unflattering. It’s as if they’re chasing an aesthetic that people will recognize as “oh, this is an Authentic Portrait™”, and putting that aesthetic consideration before the actual authenticity. Despite that, I kinda like them as pure photos, but a lot of them, in trying to strip through people’s facades, just end up being representations of what people look like, rather than portraits.
In Kander’s defense, though, even though that’s a dream job, it’s also one of the tougher things I can imagine trying to do. It’s an ambitious assignment, not so much because of it’s sheer scope, but because when you’re treading that line between unflattering and revealing, it’s easy to miss the mark. Avedon had years to do it, and a much less demanding production environment to work in, in addition to having subjects that weren’t hyper-aware of their own image.
NOTE: Alright, damnit, I like them too. They do get more interesting the more you look at them. I’d like to see them in print too — several people commented that they’re much richer in print. I think I just got hung up on those damn fake drop-shadows in a journalistic publication. I am as big a liar as anyone, with Photoshop, but I do it in advertising instead of in editorial. In advertising, it’s your job to lie. I know the average person wouldn’t notice the shadows, but some people do. It just bugs me. But do I admire and respect Nadav Kander as a photographer? Of course. He’s a true master. And I guess he would say, “Why would I want to approach a project like that in the same way as Avedon? That was twenty or thirty years ago, and it’s already been done”. And to that, I guess I’d hear him. But I’d just say, “These are living breathing, working humans — not blow-up dolls.” I’m not asking for a Beauty Dish softlight treatment, but I guess I would hope they’d look like they were still breathing, and not like a mannequin in the basement of that Silence Of The Lambs guy. -MT
Love the Axelrod cookie shot (in the back story)!
Ok Mark, The big question is what would you do if you took the call for this gig ? Would you play safe and do your normal highly successful style, or would you reach for the ‘PlungerCam ‘ ? Maybe shoot it all on polaroid ? Possibly even a bit of Roversi ?
The way Kander shot this is nothing new, it’s the look of the moment. The Blow Up Doll Look. Loretta Lux perfected it some time ago and has made a small fortune in the process. What would have been really neat would have been a desert island backdrop instead of Arctic White.
The more I look at them, the less I know what the hell I think of them…. which I guess is a win for any artist. At least it’s work that generates dialogue, which is way better than a summary judgment any day. But the shadows do get more annoying with time.
To Barrie: I have no idea how I’d approach it. I’m sure by proximity, they had to shoot in those two ballrooms, so it’s either seamless or canvas or a ballroom background I guess.
It is funny to think how other people might have done it, if they’d gotten the call:
A) Ryan McGinley: He picks all the staffers up in a motor home, in Chicago, and off they go on a nude road trip. They all start passing around the Blotter, just south of Midway Airport, and by the time they get to Gary, Indiana, they’re all tripping their brains out. McGinley starts to light the sparklers and the fog machine inside the motor home, and a nekkid Eric Holder jumps out the window, onto the grille of the motor home. McGinley is firing away with a beat-up Nikon that he bought at a pawn shop, shooting expired Fotomat film. He processes the film along the way, in the bathroom of the motor home, has the negs turned into 4×6 prints at a local drug store, and they’re scanned in New York the following morning. No one has any memory of what happened, except the Illinois state police find a burned-out motor home outside of Cairo, Illinois.
B) Terry Richardson lands the gig, and they charter a Gulfstream IV from Chicago to Vegas. Terry’s running around with the Contax, slapping Emanuel on his bare ass, and writing his name across the stomach of Bob Gates in pink lipstick.
C) Taryn Simon gets the call, and she does individual portraits at every hidden, undisclosed government agency across the country. The job takes six weeks to complete, they’re three hundred grand over budget, and Obama is out of office before all the files are ready to publish. She blindfolds every subject, and puts them in the trunk of the limo, on the way to every location, so they have no knowledge of where they’ve been.
D) Katy Grannan gets the call, and she shoots each staffer in drag, lying down in the sand, on the shore of Lake Michigan, with a weird expression on their face.
E) Chris Buck gets the call, and he shoots every staffer against blue seamless, near a window. Or at his mother’s house. Bob Gates has an apple in his mouth, ala Pulp Fiction. Hillary is lead away in handcuffs. The subjects are told not to bring any props that they relate to — Chris’ prop stylist will furnish everything. They all have fun, they all tell great stories.
Since Obama is all about the youth of America, and a general “lightening up” of the whole administration, my vote would have gone to Chris Buck. Of all those photographers above, he’s “the guy that you’d like to have a beer with, at a back yard barbeque”. That’s the determining factor, right?
I am not too great at the clever banter exchange thing but these pictures have been on my mind and not for the sake of the pictures.
They are weak and poorly executed. So much so that I was very surprised and somewhat perplexed at the reverence of Ryan’s writing about the pictures and the session. Naturally the uniformity and the no-seam was due to constraint of having a cohesive series.
But – the pictures are weak and not compelling. They are neither ‘cool’ nor exacting. Avedon would likely have kept sticking film holders into the camera and been displeased with the lighting.
The subjects and the access will make the shooter’s career if that is at all necessary but if those photos were resented in a portfolio the shooter would be instructed to practice on more chefs with fish.
Mark, now we’re talking. If I’d been commissioning this one of those would have been my choice…..
I mean if Annie Leibovitz had shot this it would have been done in her usual style, you know, slick lighting, make up artists, the whole nine yards. It would have looked great and predictable. The same as she usually does. Maybe the same for any of the other top names mentioned before.
These photographs are anything but weak and compelling, because why am I compelled to return to them time and time again. I haven’t passed them by as I do most stuff I look at today. Nadav Kander knows what he’s doing , just look at his other work, this is a guy who pushes the envelope and tries different stuff day in and day out, unpredictable and edgy. I admire him for that, but I don’t always like it. I never pass it by with out a second glance either. It’s always interesting.
I guess this post and these pictures make us look at our own work and think, maybe I should try something different today and see what happens. Sort of, where do I go from here…..
Barrie, thats what makes art so much fun. Wait, was this for arts sake? Or was this a portrait assignment for a national news publication? I too have a hard time with the fake shadow and or the seemingly fake look of it. I am not as harsh as Bruce is on these, but they do begin to look like the myriad of other photographers work attempting to recreate this type of portraiture.
A couple additional comments:
1. On the Richard Avedon comparisons — everything is derivative. Clearly Kander drew some inspiration from Avedon for this shoot. But he also added his own style as well. I think that is better than attempting a shameless rip-off of Avedon’s work. It doesn’t bother me at all. It’s just variation on a classic theme.
2. To Mark’s point on the use of Photoshop in editorial content, I suspect the rules regarding electronic editing of images will evolve over time. The Kander shots are a feature for the NYT Magazine and not hard news. Features have always been allowed a little more creative latitude than news. Perhaps this signals a relaxing of rules against the use of Photoshop in some editorial situations. I’m not sure whether this is good or bad development but rules, even at the NYT, rarely remain static. The line between when Photoshop is acceptable and where it is probably going to be a moving target. Enhancing hard news shots will always be wrong, but there is a big gray area for interpretation. Also, I wonder whether you would feel the same way if the same images appeared in a different publication, say GQ?
3. Maybe the NYT does a much better job of managing file content than any publication I ever worked for, but the inappropriateness of the Kander shots for non-feature news is worrisome. I can imagine a situation where, under a tight deadline, someone calls for a file photo of Hillary Clinton and the Kander shot of her looking like she just pooped her pantsuit winds up being used for a hard news piece by mistake. That would be really embarrassing.
4. Lastly, the reason I keep coming back to liking the Kander shots is they seem to capture an element of each subjects’ personality. If I were going to Washington to interview each member of Obama’s staff, and the only research I was able to do was look at Kander’s images, I think I can get a sense for which individuals I could joke around with; which ones might respond well to fairly broad questions; and which ones would only respond to carefully-worded, very specific questions. It would be interesting to be able to test that theory. If it’s true, Kander did a great job. If not true, then you have to wonder.
5. The fake shadows still suck. I’d love to hear the back story on those. Were they added because the sans-shadow shots looked weak? Is this Kander’s idea of artistic expression? (if so, why didn’t he just light the set to get a real shadow?) Was this a brilliant idea tossed into the mix after the shoot? It’s curious.
To Tom: My issue about the fake Photoshop shadows is CONTEXT. I just wish the NYTimes would change the Magazine Masthead font from that standard NYTimes Old English custom font, to something san serif or something, where the Magazine clearly separates itself more from the main NEWSpaper. I just think it’s misleading to the general public to have two sets of retouching standards.
I don’t know any of their staffers, but I’ve got a fifty in my back pocket that says that, if Today, someone like Tyler Hicks or Todd Heisler or Stephen Crowley shot an assignment, and stripped in something as noticeable as the fake drop shadow, THEY’D BE FIRED ON THE SPOT. “Clean out your desk, get your shit, and get out of here. No severance, no nothing. And go out the back door, and hang your head low as you walk through the newsroom”. So the NYTimes gets all high-horse about their accuracy, but then they allow the Magazine to do fake photoshop ringlight drop shadows? Huh? Crowley gets fired, but Kander gets an award?
Again, it’s a newspaper, and if you don’t consider that story News, then what IS news? I know it’s a “feature” but it’s still news, and it still should be trustworthy. I still maintain, call them “photo illustrations”.
Still, on their own, I like the images. As images.
I admire Kander for sticking to his guns, and doing it his way. I mean, if you’re doing Editorial, isn’t that the point? I’d love to have seen the invoice for that job:
Photo Fee (two days): $400
Expenses: $40,000.
——–
Total: $40,400.00
So if that’s the case, you’d BEST be doing the job for your book…
I do find all the conversation about this story very interesting. It’s encouraging to see the passion from everyone’s perspective.
Tom, regarding the Photoshop work for editorial content. I’d like to know how much retouching is done to skin on any editorial portrait. Quite a bit I would imagine, making all the politicians, Hollywood stars and big business moguls appear twenty years younger. Is that right, is that honest? At least these fake drop shadows are obvious, even if they are annoying. Where do you draw the line ?
For hard news it’s an easy line to draw. Just do nothing, nothing is allowed. But features, well it’s a different ballgame.
Chris Buck would have made something real interesting. But then I would have given you the job Mark as long as you used the Plungercam.
Nadav Kander’s photographs are compelling…a loaded word for sure. After going through them a few times online and only recently in print (no lie, I picked up a copy of the magazine that I found in the trash on the Mall in the shadow of the Washington Monument on January 20 as I walked around trying to make pictures for the agency I was working for), I thought I was being gimmicked and then reading these posts it dawned on me that the exact opposite thing might have been going on.
Kander’s subjects (and their boss) have been invested and entrusted with the hopes and emotions and anxieties of hundreds of millions of people. Kander has objectified them with the lighting and the seamless and the moments he (and the PE, APE etc) chose to show in the work. In the world of photojournalism (where I, despite my best efforts, remain), I might strive for a little more context…some kind of humanizing element: my bias, or sympathy, for better or worse, would probably come across. Digital shadowing aside, Kander’s work is objective almost to the point of being clinical.
Maybe a casual reader would page through the magazine and be struck by the true (and mere) humanity of these people: a tentative smile, pear-shapedness, jowls. Bags beneath eyes. A kind of breathlessness. Maybe they would see something of themselves in Obama’s people and take that to heart. And maybe they would be moved to some sort of action.
In the end, I applaud what I believe Nadav Kander and the Magazine have tried to do. Honestly, I might be a little tired of seeing a “Jeff Zelevansky” picture of so-and-so. I might just want to draw my own conclusions. I think it takes guts and resolve to set aside the “thing” you’re known for to let a little unvarnished-ness show…if that was the idea.
To Mark: No question, if any of the NYT staff photographers did what Kander did, they would likely be shot first, then fired. But the Kander shoot sets a precedent. Now the staffers can argue “You let Nadav Kander add fake shadows on the Obama staff shoot, I’d like to use a creative treatment on my feature assignment….” Remember change can be glacial in organizations like the NYT. Kander’s fake shadows opens the door for discussion. NYT management can no longer say “Photoshopping images is forbidden, end of discussion.” Now it’s open to negotiation — some Photoshopping is acceptable under specific circumstances. That’s why I said the line is now a moving target.
To Barrie: what constitutes acceptable levels of retouching varies by organization. If you work for a fashion book, retouching is not only acceptable, it’s a required skill. Hard news organizations (NYT, Reuters, AP, etc.) have been very reluctant to allow even minor retouching. That’s why I say this is an interesting topic to watch over the next few years. I think there is going to be some moderation in the rules regarding retouching. Again, I don’t know whether that is good or bad, I think it’s just a topic that defies an absolute “yes” or “no” answer.
Tom, are the shots that Annie Leibovitz does for Vanity Fair or the other magazines she works for ever retouched ? Are the sitters ever beautified in any way ? I don’t know, but they sure look it to me. I’d be interested to know.
Also one thing crossed my mind today. People of my generation, probably the same as Mark’s too, become less and less important from a consumer point of view. Publications have to start appealing to younger generations with their content or else they’re going to the wall quicker than they already are. Younger consumers expect to see images a bit funkier, a bit off the wall. I bet they don’t give a damn about the drop shadows or the Blow up Doll look, I bet they’d find them very cool. If I had a copy of the magazine I’d ask a few youngsters to see what they thought of them.
The more I look at the images the more I like them. I reckon I could live with one or two hanging on the wall.
Melissa Dixson, NYC taxidermist, photographed by NYT staffer Todd Heisler:
http://tinyurl.com/8stvd3
As Burnett would say, “I’m just sayin”….
” I’m just sayin’ too” Some of these were from the late 1940’s and fifties !
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/arts/design/18penn.html
Barrie: I don’t know Annie Leibovitz and don’t have any insight into her contractual terms. So, sorry, no clue.
I don’t think this is an issue of “hipness” vs. “unhipness” it’s about news vs. non-news. It’s fairly common for fashion publications to retouch images — sometimes pretty substantially. News organizations have generally prohibited any retouching — even for softer news pieces, such as feature articles. The idea is news should be real, unaltered. The fake drop shadows mark a departure from that standard for the NYT. Personally, I have mixed feelings about it.
On one hand, there is the “slippery slope” aspect. If you start allowing Photoshopped images in “some” cases, a reader of the NYT will no longer know whether an image is real or doctored in some way. On the other hand, there are a lot of edits that can be made to visually improve an image that would have no material impact on the veracity of the story being told.
Reporters do interviews, gather quotes and distill information to create a story. There is no requirement that a transcript of a 45-minute interview with a source be published verbatim. The publication, and ultimately the reader, operate on faith that the reporter has extracted the salient points from the interview and is accurately representing the tone and content of the interview in his/her copy. If a reporter breaks that faith, they’re in trouble. The same standard does not apply to photojournalists. If you clone a bird out of the background of a shot, you will probably be fired. That seems like a double standard to me. Obviously there have been notorious cases of both reportorial and photojournalistic fraud/abuse. But the NYT staff photographers that Mark mentioned are all talented, responsible people. Should they not be given the same level of trust to exercise judgment in editing an image that a reporter has in editing an interview?
I know that if I’d shot the job and delivered those same results, you guys would be calling the entire body of work a load of cowpie, and wondering just who the hell I was. The reason y’all are scratchin’ your heads is because Kander produced the images, and up to now his work has been exceptional, and these photos ain’t. We look at ‘em, study ‘em, analyze ‘em and come away with “WTF?”. That’s not a sign of great work.
Given no more than 30 minutes of time with each subject (as stated in the audio), at two different locations poses anyone with a production challenge. Perhaps Kander went in simply relying on using post-production to enhance what would normally be very bland portraits.
Love ‘em, hate ‘em. At first I loved ‘em. Or wait a minute, was it that I hated ‘em? I just know each time I look at them I feel differently about them. I have defended them and I have pissed on them. Each for good reason I think.
One might think that this means that they are powerful or that this justifies them in some way. Not necessarily. I think it just means I’m surprised by how they were done the way a bad horror flick might stick in some way. Doesn’t make it good.
Moreover, I feel the lighting is horrid. The background doesn’t trouble me so much. Kind of interesting.
But what I’m left with is that they are completely unflattering for most of them – in a contrived way. Not in a coal miner against white Avedon way. Unflattering isn’t always bad. But this is sort of going out of one’s way to get their feeling.
But what holds my attention about this matter is this simple question, is this a look at how these people really are when the photographer doesn’t ‘fluff them up’, where they are so lacking in artifice? Or would we really see more of the person if the photographer sought to capture their better or more dignified side? That’s the question I’m left with. But I wouldn’t want Kander or NYT to take credit for that after-the-fact question, in the way that all artistic statements tend to do. Hate artistic statements.
In the end, I’m left with the feeling that these are interesting for reasons other than the fact that the people are interesting. That the photographs don’t really reveal the dignity of the subjects in balance with their awkwardness.
I end up feeling that Bill Stockland convinced Nadav to do an assignment he didn’t really want to d all that much and that Nadar seems like he’s whining about how little time he had to delve into each subject. (Not that Nadar didn’t do his job – just that he TOOK the job.)
They just suck, no doubt about it! If it was me, I would have done a Mark Hauser type of lighting. As you said, it should bring out the “human” in them.
Finally got to this blog’s comments and have to agree with Chris and Tom. He did a fabulous job with what he had to deal with and the drop shadows don’t bother me.
OK, yeah. I read your blog and now I’ve skipped to the bottom of the page here to start typing without reading much of the other posts. But it’s late (or at least it feels late) and I’ve a couple glasses of wine in me and all of a sudden I have an opinion.
This is exactly the times when Vozdic and I would have pulled the other out of the party and gotten them a cab home. “And another thing … !” shouted from the accelerating yellow vehicle.
But I like the portraits if for no other reason than they are different takes on people we see images of on a DAILY basis (with a few new faces as well). I really don’t care that journalistic integrity was, or is, at stake. Because the NY Times is supposed to initiate a thought process on each of it’s stories, as any good journalistic publication should. But it’s the staff bearer. The NYT’s stories should stir, it should cause questioning, if only to further confirm though our (the readers’/viewers’) ongoing conversations. So let them stir visually as well.
Drop shadows, unflattering lighting … so what. Get past the craft of it all. If Kander is such a master (which I agree that he is) then at best he is pulling on learned craft to get his larger point across. So maybe his point is to get a conversation started. Hell anything is better than falling in lock-step like the last 8 years of boring images … don’t get me started. We commercial guys who shoot for magazines can all attest to photographing people of some importance and they only giving us a 6 to 7 frames when we’ve been promised half an hour. Jesus, can you imagine how this session went down?
But back to what I was drawn to initially; Nick Knight, a few years ago on his ShowStudio.com site he had a series call “Beautiful Women” or something like that. In it he would grab whatever household-name super model or actress or designer or whathaveyou as they popped by the studio, place them in front of a white wall, start rolling a mini video recorder on a tripod and (probably) say, “Now stand here and don’t move while I run over here and … I’ll be right back.” The camera would film these (all beautiful, seemingly powerful) women … just standing there for 60 or 90 seconds. The outcomes were incredibly diverse, but also incredibly interesting & telling. You really saw in these little bites any flaws of security, any cracks in the armor … Kander speaks of trying to set up a similar situation in the video interview, not speaking very much, very little direction, but I’m sure these subjects were far too entrenched in their 90mph pace to relax into anything to “real” or revealing.
So I’m trying to back up and see it as actually a story rather than judging each image, even though I’m drawn to do so. I’m attempting to take craft away from the judging/analyzing portion. But what with Kander often with a leg in each world of commercial and journalism, straddling the body of work he’s produced here, I think it’s within the realm of what one would expect visually give this assignment by this particular photo editor.
“I’m kinda old. I’m not cool I’m sorta Old School” …”I’m more “classic” than “green gel rimlight cool”…”If you don’t know what green gel rimlight cool means, then you’re not cool either.”
Mark: I’m a “bit” older, and most likely no where near “cool” as green gel rimlight make me want to puke. It’s the next scariest thing to seeing that for me is that white light at the end of my tunnel.
FWIW, years ago I met Kathy up in Maine. Nice conversations and insight into editorial work. Yep, I liked her then and still do.
I first noticed some of the Obama’s people’s portraits on the web and went “What the hell?” And as I’ve seen more of them, I still go “What the hell?” But they are interesting in what they are. I did get, and still do get a very different feeling looking at Avedon’s series “In the American West, and his “Portraits of Power” exhibit.
The feeling I get looking at the images of Obama’s people is one of campiness. (Websters, 2 a: something so outrageously artificial, affected, inappropriate, or out-of-date as to be considered amusing.) Where as Avedon’s work stands on it own, with the subjects standing there essentially creating their own environments.
Mark – I feel your pain.
My take was that the style was used to strip as much away from the subject as possible – no enhancement – honesty – a reflection of how the new administration projects itself.
personally, I don’t care for the style but I have high regard for those who push anything that hard.
I’m still waiting for that call.
I love this photo shoot. Not because it’s great photography. It is not.
I love it, because i love famous artists, who are not afraid to mess things up in front of the huge audience – just for the sake of experiment.
Do you really think, that Kander couldn’t come up with a better lighting setup!? The guy knows how it all works perfectly well.
We are so stuck with perfectionism, flawlessness and “play-it-safe” approach… we are so scared of experimenting and doing things in a different way, that i often wonder how could we come up with something original in our work at all!
What would i do, if i got the call?
I’d shit my pants and play it safe… that’s why everyone knows Nadav Kander and nobody knows me!